Garrido vs Tuason Date: August 23, 1968 Plaintiff Appellant: Jose Garrido Defendant Appellee: Pilar Tuason Ponente:

e: Concepcion Facts: Jose Garrido commenced a case for the foreclosure of a chattel mortgage, executed in his favor by Pila Tuason, to guarantee the payment of a debt in the sum of P1,000, as well as for the recovery of attorney's fees and the costs. A decision was rendered ordering the defendant to pay to plaintiff "the sum of P1,000 with interest thereon at the rate of 1% per month from June 30, 1959 until the whole amount is fully paid, plus the sum of P100 for attorney's fees, and the costs." In compliance with a writ of execution, issued on December 9, 1959, after this decision had become final, a car of the defendant was sold, by the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal, at public auction, to the plaintiff, as the highest bidder, for the sum of P550. Plaintiff filed two (2) motions, namely: one, praying that the sum of P165, allegedly spent by him to carry out said writ of execution, be added to the unsatisfied portion of the aforementioned decision, presumably as part of the costs; and another, for an alias writ of execution for the sum of P1,290.58, as the aggregate outstanding balance allegedly due under said decision. Both motions were denied. Soon later, plaintiff commenced a civil case against defendant whose husband was included, as her codefendant for the recovery of said alleged balance of P1,290.58. On motion of said defendants, plaintiff's complaint was dismissed. The CFI affirmed the dismissal pursuant to Article 2115 CC. Issue: WON plaintiff can still recover the deficiency

Ratio: Article 2115 of said Code reads: ". . . The sale of the thing pledged shall extinguish the principal obligation, whether or not the
proceeds of the sale are equal to the amount of the principal obligation, interest and expenses in a proper case. If the price of the sale is more than said amount, the debtor shall not be entitled to the excess, unless it is otherwise agreed. If the price of the sale is less, neither shall the creditor be entitled to recover the deficiency, notwithstanding any stipulation to the contrary."

The CFI must have applied this precept in view of Article 2141 CC, pursuant to which the provisions thereof on pledge shall be applicable to chattel mortgages "insofar as they are not in conflict with the Chattel Mortgage Law." We have already held, however, that said Article 2115 is inconsistent with the provisions of the Chattel Mortgage Law, and that, accordingly, the chattel mortgage creditor may maintain an action for the deficiency. Then, again, said Court would seem to have acted under the impression, that, since Case No. 71763 was one for the foreclosure of a chattel mortgage, the decision therein rendered was for such foreclosure; but such was not the nature of said decision, for it merely ordered the defendant to pay the sum of P1,000, with interest thereon. It did not order the sale of the property mortgaged to the plaintiff or of any other particular property, for the satisfaction of his credit against the defendant. It did not purport to enforce plaintiff's lien over the mortgaged property. In other words, it was an ordinary money judgment, to which said Articles 2115 and 2141 were absolutely irrelevant. The municipal court erred, therefore, in denying plaintiff's motion of January 28, 1960, for the issuance of an alias writ of execution in Case No. 71763, less than 5 years having elapsed since the decision therein was rendered on November 14, 1959. As a consequence, plaintiff could have and should have appealed from the order of denial of said motion; but, he did not do so, and, instead, he brought the case at bar, thereby allowing said order to become final. Thus, the principle of res adjudicata bars the present action, which, accordingly, was dismissed properly.